Tam metin için tıklayınız

Abstract
Background
Delta check is a patient-based QC tool for detecting errors by comparing current and previous test results of patient. Reference change value (RCV) is adopted in guidelines as method for delta check, but the performance is not verified. We applied RCV-based delta check method to patients’ data and modified for application.

Materials and methods
Reference change value were calculated using results of internal QC materials and biological variation data. Test results of 17 analytes in inpatients, outpatients, and health examination recipients were collected. The detection rates of currently used delta check method and those of RCV-based method were compared, and the methods were modified.

Results
Reference change value-based method had higher detection rates compared to conventional method. Applied modifications reduced detection rates. Removing the pairs of results within reference interval reduced detection rates (0.42% ~ 10.92%). When RCV was divided by time interval, the detection rates were similar to prior rates in outpatients (0.19% ~ 1.34%). Using RCV multiplied by twice the upper limit of reference value as cutoff reduced the detection rate (0.07% ~ 1.58%).

Conclusions
Reference change value is a robust criterion for delta check and included in clinical laboratory practice guideline. However, RCV-based method generates high detection rates which increase workload. It needs modification for use in clinical laboratories.

Tam metin için tıklayınız

ABSTRACT
Delta checks are a post-analytical verification tool that compare the difference in sequential laboratory results belonging to the same patient against a predefined limit. This unique quality tool highlights a potential error at the individual patient level. A difference in sequential laboratory results that exceeds the predefined limit is considered likely to contain an error that requires further investigation that can be time and resource intensive. This may cause a delay in the provision of the result to the healthcare provider or entail recollection of the patient sample. Delta checks have been used primarily to detect sample misidentification (sample mix-up, wrong blood in tube), and recent advancements in laboratory medicine, including the adoption of protocolized procedures, information technology and automation in the total testing process, have significantly reduced the prevalence of such errors. As such, delta check rules need to be selected carefully to balance the clinical risk of these errors and the need to maintain operational efficiency. Historically, delta check rules have been set by professional opinion based on reference change values (biological variation) or the published literature. Delta check rules implemented in this manner may not inform laboratory practitioners of their real-world performance. This review discusses several evidence-based approaches to the optimal setting of delta check rules that directly inform the laboratory practitioner of the error detection capabilities of the selected rules. Subsequent verification of workflow for the selected delta check rules is also discussed. This review is intended to provide practical assistance to laboratories in setting evidence-based delta check rules that best suits their local operational and clinical needs.

Tam metin için tıklayınız

ABSTRACT
International standards and practice guidelines recommend the use of delta check alerts for laboratory test result interpretation and quality control. The value of contemporary applications of simple univariate delta checks determined as an absolute change, percentage change, or rate of change to recognize specimen misidentification or other laboratory errors has not received much study. This review addresses these three modes of calculation, but in line with the majority of published work, most attention is focused on the identification of specimen misidentification errors. Investigation of delta check alerts are time-consuming and the yield of identified errors is usually small compared to the number of delta check alerts; however, measured analytes with low indices of individuality frequently perform better. While multivariate approaches to delta checks suggest improved usefulness over simple univariate delta check strategies, some of these are complex and not easily applied in contemporary laboratory information systems and middleware. Nevertheless, a simple application of delta checks may hold value in identifying clinically significant changes in several clinical situations: for acute kidney injury using changes in serum creatinine, for risk of osmotic demyelination syndrome using rapid acute changes in serum sodium levels, or for early triage of chest pain patients using high sensitivity troponin assays. A careful and highly selective approach to identifying delta check analytes, calculation modes, and thresholds before putting them into practice is warranted; then follow-up with careful monitoring of performance and balancing true positives, false negatives, and false positives among delta check alerts is needed

Ann Lab Med. Sep 2012; 32(5): 345–354.

Abstract
Background

Many laboratories use 4 delta check methods: delta difference, delta percent change, rate difference, and rate percent change. However, guidelines regarding decision criteria for selecting delta check methods have not yet been provided. We present new decision criteria for selecting delta check methods for each clinical chemistry test item.

Methods

We collected 811,920 and 669,750 paired (present and previous) test results for 27 clinical chemistry test items from inpatients and outpatients, respectively. We devised new decision criteria for the selection of delta check methods based on the ratio of the delta difference to the width of the reference range (DD/RR). Delta check methods based on these criteria were compared with those based on the CV% of the absolute delta difference (ADD) as well as those reported in 2 previous studies.

Results

The delta check methods suggested by new decision criteria based on the DD/RR ratio corresponded well with those based on the CV% of the ADD except for only 2 items each in inpatients and outpatients. Delta check methods based on the DD/RR ratio also corresponded with those suggested in the 2 previous studies, except for 1 and 7 items in inpatients and outpatients, respectively.

Conclusions

The DD/RR method appears to yield more feasible and intuitive selection criteria and can easily explain changes in the results by reflecting both the biological variation of the test item and the clinical characteristics of patients in each laboratory. We suggest this as a measure to determine delta check methods.